KG 5 class underestimated?

[Tiornu]

I'd venture to say that main-battery caliber is, to a certain extent, a matter of taste. The two times the USN escalated from 14in to 16in, the number of barrels was reduced, but the weight of broadside was at least as great. If we accept Lion as representing what the RN would have gone for if not for the wishful 14in limit, then the same would apply there. The Scharnhorst-class upgrade to 15in shows the same thing--fewer barrels but not less weight of broadside. The Mogami upgrade to 8in guns--same thing. The one case that runs counter to this is the modernization of the old Italian battleships; I think the broadside dropped by 12%. However, I think we'd all agree this was not a case of choosing fewer barrels for increased firepower; the number of barrels was going to be reduced no matter what, and the increased caliber was a partial offset.

[Bgile]

Bismarck's higher RoF, was a factor, especially at closer ranges, but it is hard to quantify. However, it was probably good that Leach turned away when he did, because at 14k yards the Bismarck's gunners would be able to fire as fast as they could load. I doubt they could sustain a true 3 rpm RoF, but it was probably better than 2 rpm, for sure, yet Bismarck really had no business closing into that kind of range against an enemy BB, since she is also likely to take crippling hits, which spells certain doom, in an RN dominated ocean.

Your points are well made, but at times Bismarck did fire at long range at that rate. I've seen the video. This would occur immediately after a straddle when they would fire at maximum rate until the target was no longer being straddled.

While Bismarck probably couldn't maintain maximum rate for very long, that was true of all battleships. Bismarck's was just faster. For one thing, it means that a minor error in drill might still enable a gun to fire in the next salvo. If there is a 40 second salvo interval, Bismarck's crews have 20 seconds leeway, unlike their opponents who have only 10 seconds.

[longreach]

hi KARL,the comment that the KGV class BBs are underestimated is true in some respects.they were good solid working battleship,,they had thier faults like all ships,but were more than capable of holding own,,,there has NEVER been built the perfect warship.and on that note here is a thought for everyone,,,,,,,EVERY ship that has ever been said to be unsinkable.........has one way or another been sunk(destroyed)!!!!!!

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hi longreach:

The KGV has been underestimated because their poor performance with their quadruple mounts, specially on May 24th. This problems can be tracked, I believe, to the idea of giving them a heavier broadside but being "inside" the restrictions of the Treaties.
But the ships, overall, seemed very good ships to support heavier ones, as the 16" Nelson Class.
You´re quite right about that there was no "perfect" warship. The only that could be near that definition is an hypothetical Radar Fire Directed Yamato...

Kind regards

[dunmunro]

Was 29.1 knots at 239 RPM according to her log, and this occurred at 6:00 on May 24 1941. From 5:00 to 6:00 she recorded an average speed of 28.8 knots at 235.8RPM.

thanks to Frank Allan of the HMS Hood website for this info.

[paul mercer]

Here's another 'what if' for you to ponder!
What if the KGV's had been fitted with 8 x 15" or 8 x 16"?
Presumably this could have been accommodated in the design, so would this have made them superior ships compared to what was around with other nations at the time - including Bismarck?

[dunmunro]

Here's another 'what if' for you to ponder!
What if the KGV's had been fitted with 8 x 15" or 8 x 16"?
Presumably this could have been accommodated in the design, so would this have made them superior ships compared to what was around with other nations at the time - including Bismarck?

10 x 14" is pretty much equal to 8 x 15". However, if you are talking about a 4 x 2 turret arrangement, then there is a substantial weight penalty attached to that configuration. The basic problem with 4 turrets is the weight of the extra Barbette, and the weight associated with lengthening the amour belt to accommodate the increased length. Such a design would have resulted in thinner armour and/or a slower ship due to the need to reduce machinery weights, to compensate for the increase in armament weight.

[Bgile]

For those few here who don't know this:

The North Carolina class was originally intended to have 3 quad turrets with 14" guns, which was the same configuration as that originally intended for the KGV class.

However, US Naval Architects designed a triple 16" turret which could use the same barbette as the quad 14" turret. When the Japanese refused to sign the 1936 London Naval Treaty, the US Navy decided to use the 16" turret. This resulted in several months delay in construction, but the ship was commissioned with 9 16" guns instead of 12 14" guns.

The KGVs were much further along, so a similar substitution wasn't practical.

[lwd]

Along similar lines if they had designed the KGVs so that they were compatable with the Rodneys turrets how much of an imporvement would this have been if they were so armed? Initially I would expect them to be more reliable and the 16" rounds probably had more "growth potential". On the otherhand I don't see this as being enough to make them significantly supperior to their contemporaries.

[dunmunro]

Along similar lines if they had designed the KGVs so that they were compatable with the Rodneys turrets how much of an imporvement would this have been if they were so armed? Initially I would expect them to be more reliable and the 16" rounds probably had more "growth potential". On the otherhand I don't see this as being enough to make them significantly supperior to their contemporaries.

The problems that the KGV class experienced with their main armament, were mainly to do with jamming or failing interlocks, and largely resulted from the fact that these ships had to be rushed into service. PoW, for example, had only fired five rounds per gun, in gunnery practice, and the physical installation of the turrets had been completed very shortly before she was rushed into combat. Even KGV had only been in service for about 6 months, at the time of the Bismarck episode, which was actually less than Bismarck, but KGV's guns performed very well for the first 30 minutes of the final action, and did so during a Force 8 gale. Any RN main armament design would have featured the same degree of safety interlocks, and would likely suffered from similar problems if rushed into service in the same time frame.

Another problem is weight. The difference in weight between 10 x 14" guns and 9 x 16" is considerable, with about a 500 tons difference in turret weights, but there was also about a 300 ton difference in ammo weights, so at a bare minimum the 9 x 16" armament would weigh about 800 tons more than 10 x 14" . To meet the treaty weight limits, KGV would have had to reduce the secondary to 4.5" and thin some armour or reduce the machinery weights.

However, the biggest problem was that the UK didn't have the capacity to design and build two different turret/gun combos simultaneously and when the KGV was designed, and laid down, the treaties limited main gun calibre to 14". I think the actual design was a very good compromise, but if I could go back in time to influence the design, I might have been tempted to reduce the secondary to 20 x 4.5" and shrink the machinery, by going with 6 larger boilers, instead of 8, and try and retain 12 x 14" guns, and get the ships completed sooner, which would have allowed for more time to work up each ship.

[lwd]

One of the reasons I mentioned intial reliability is that there was well over a decade to work out bugs in the design due to Nelson and Rodney.

[Bgile]

Nelson and Rodney weren't good examples to learn from. Their armament and magazine layout were different from past and future British practice, and resulted in a loading cycle that was slower than what was generally considered adequate. There wasn't much there to learn from, other than not to do it that way again.